Nice to see you again. I'm sorry to report that I'm feeling a little crabby in general today. My comment is directed to you, it's just my mood
escaping.

No new law has been passed, this will have almost no effect on our legal system. This is largely pressure group politics to give one group more
importance and funding and will just tend to confuse the issue. Besides, the definition is poor.

The only thing happening is that the Justice Department will lump more kinds of sexual assault under the category "rape" when it comes to reporting
statistics. No punishments will be changed, rape is almost entirely a state crime, the state laws will control, the Feds have nothing to do with
it.

What this does do is increase the number of actions that can be called "rape" in reports. This will raise funding for "Rape Victims" groups.

MODS PLEASE SNIP THIS PARAGRAPH IF OFFENSIVE This also creates the possibility of accidental rape. If a man and a woman are together and the man
slips into another opening accidentally, that would be rape under the definition given in the source article. Also under the definition, a man could
rape a woman using oral sex, but a woman could not rape a man using oral sex..

As I say, isyeye, I'm feeling crabby today. I apologize to you and any reader.

While no new law has been passed yet, this is an important step to help stop violent crime in our country. I've re-read the article again, but I do
not see a few of the things you mentioned in the article...I may have missed it...If you have some additional resources on this topic, please share
with us, because this is an important issue.

Yes, states do generally have the power over issues such as these, however, this may help get all the states "on the same page" so to
speak.

Actually it would not. The requirements to qualify for rape / sexual assault are specific.

I would agree with the thought it wont affect many people. Generally speaking rape is a local / state crime, prosecuted under state law. Local / state
arent empowered to enforce federal law and im sure the FBI is up to its neckties and pocket protectors in crimes that would make taking up local rape
cases an no go.

Within the Department of Justice there is the Bureau of Justice Statistics. Here is their website: Bureau of Justice
Statistics Not surprisingly they collect statistics. One way they do that is the National Crime Victimization Survey. (Please note the word
"Survey.") BJS contacts a sample of individuals around the country and asks them if they have been a victim of crime. Information from these
interviews are collected in Washington and turned into reports.

Other groups conduct similar surveys. One such suvey is the National Violence Against Women Survey. The BJS has noticed that the different surveys
give significantly different results. Perhaps, they thought to themselves, the different surveys have different definitions for rape. So after a
study, Project summary the Bureau of Justice Statistics has come up with a
different definition they will use when taking the survey in the future.

(P.S. This will also affect the reporting of crimes from police departments, but again, it's just a report and a new definition for what gets included
in the "rape column." )

That's it, sorry. No extra protection for anyone, no new charges, nothing new in the courtrooms.

After reading the article, I mostly agree with your analysis. It seems to just be a statistical thing that won't have any immediate effect on crimes
charged at state levels, but only will affect reporting.

A possible indirect effect is that with bigger numbers reported, there could be later effects on funding of various related initiatives, but that
won't be immediate and it would be quite speculative to suggest.

The only thing I'm not sure of in your analysis is the sexist interpretation or oral rape; while it's possible you're correct, I'm not sure about
that. It's probably too graphic to discuss in a family forum like this so we'll just have to leave that one.

You guys should watch this one closely, the "Rape" definition have been broadened so many times in recent years in Sweden that now any sex act is
considered rape, as long as one of the people invovled change their mind afterwards (when sobering up for example) and tells someone they "regret
it", it does not even have to be the police being told this, this person getting the knowledge can in turn then proceed to tell the police and they
are obligated to incarcerate and try to get a guilty verdict as soon as possible. It all happens automatically, even if the supposed "victim" does
not want to prosecute, it is the obligation of the prosecutor to proceed.

You guys should watch this one closely, the "Rape" definition have been broadened so many times in recent years in Sweden that now any sex act is
considered rape, as long as one of the people invovled change their mind afterwards (when sobering up for example) and tells someone they "regret
it", it does not even have to be the police being told this, this person getting the knowledge can in turn then proceed to tell the police and they
are obligated to incarcerate and try to get a guilty verdict as soon as possible. It all happens automatically, even if the supposed "victim" does
not want to prosecute, it is the obligation of the prosecutor to proceed.

The definition is still archaic, since it involves the concept of penetration. I assume that rape mainly applies to male perps, and women using
objects or digits. However, there are other forms of forced sexual behaviours. This article specifically mentions boys being raped now counting as
rape.

What if the perp is a female, and it doesn't involve penetration? What if the perp is a female and the victim is a female and it doesn't involve
penetration? It would seem this is not rape under the law.

The definitions between rape and sexual assault around funding is a disturbing idea, and ripe for political misuse.

This content community relies on user-generated content from our member contributors. The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides a collaborative venue for free expression.